How should I handle this (Magazine Samples)

Here is a quote from an email sent to me by the editor of a large car magazine. Ok none of these samples I sent are "Photoshopped" I did add luminance to a couple and contrast in raw (Lightroom) plus my settings in my cameras have been turned up eg. contrast and saturation since I shoot cars mostly. A couple have a vignette added as well.

"There are some that I really love but the photoshop work is a bit much for our magazine. We don¹t use high quality paper stock so it might not look too good in print. The middle picture in the top row on the first sheet is cool, but like I said on the paper we use for print it will get lost and distorted."

The quick samples, took allot more just sent him these cause he wanted a few samples asap. The contact sheets are photoshopped

http://alamoride.com …lamoride_sc2_sa​mple_1.jpg

http://alamoride.com …lamoride_sc2_sa​mple_2.jpg

That middle picture he is talking about is the slow exposure then at the end I thought it was done and moved the tripod and that effect was totally natural with flash so it still showed the decals decently sharp. The red in some of the night shots are from neon lights.

Tell me what do you think! Do you think they are to photoshopped looking too?

For the most part, I think they look nice. I can see where the editor might think Photoshop had a big part in this, though. Nice, clean, shiny car. Bright. Background with colors that pop. Could easily be done to duller pictures in PS. Maybe try submitting the shots without the small tweaks you made? Did you shoot RAW? If so, you could tone town the in-camera stuff.

I agree they do look good. I think I understand that your photos need more color to pop and they probably need something more like your second photo---the ones on the right where there is a distinct difference between car and sky-etc.

Well, he's right in the sense that the image would get lost in print...they do look a bit PS'd and in print I could see them running into problems because of the "work" done to them - even though you didn't do it in photoshop, they tend to have that look. Would make for good full color prints, but magazine standards, especially with the paper he's talking about, are a bit different. He's definately not trying to rip you or anything, but he's right that it would get lost in print.

There is a difference in how things look on the screen, and how they look in print. I have to agree with the editor that there could be issues with those images going to print. With that said, I do like the overall look as shown on the screen, but also have reservations on how it might look in print depending on the printing processes they use.

If you want to get that look in the final image, you'd need to figure out what printing process they used, get the printer profiles, and tweak the images withing the bounds of the printing process. They may not have an experienced staff that is able to correctly process then for print, and thus he may be afraid to take a chance and have it look badly in print. Or, he may not want to pay outside help to pre-process the files for them at an extra cost.

I would tone down the images a bit and resubmit them. Or get the profiles and do the conversions to CMYK to verify they are within limits.

Thanks people, I am just sending him 165 original shots on dvd. These are my second mag shoot, but first to get printed in the line.

sfaust is right on the dollar. images on computer screen <> paper print. Especially when the magazine uses toilet paper quality materials. Your images look good on screen but will definitely look terrible when printed on the typical magazine. Too fussy, too overly PS-ed. Keep it simple. Allow the car to shine on its own merit.

The buildings with graffiti in the background tend to distract the viewer from the cars. I have a hard time concentrating on the cars because of this. A much simpler, less colorful, out of focus background would definitely help. If both the cars & the BG jump off the page then the viewer gets confused. Hope this helps some.

Tixeon wrote in post #4272871
The buildings with graffiti in the background tend to distract the viewer from the cars. I have a hard time concentrating on the cars because of this. A much simpler, less colorful, out of focus background would definitely help. If both the cars & the BG jump off the page then the viewer gets confused. Hope this helps some.

Yea but we have already got isolated shots of the car, wanted something with some noisey backgrounds.

delhi wrote in post #4265333
Especially when the magazine uses toilet paper quality materials. Your images look good on screen but will definitely look terrible when printed on the typical magazine.

And here is an interesting thought for those doing magazine work without insurance. Suppose you feed the magazine a set of images, and when it goes to press the image falls apart and ruins their press run. They loose tens of thousands of dollars, and decide to sue the photographer for their error. They may or may not win, but that wouldn't stop a pissed off magazine for filing the law suit to recover the money they lost. You would still have to defend yourself, and thats very expensive. Its happened before, and will happen again.

While its their responsibility to do QA on their production runs, its also the photographers responsibility to deliver images suitable and ready for production. If the photographer doesn't know how to properly prep the image for press use, and delivers faulty images it can hurt the photographers reputation and ruin a press run. There is more to commercial photography than creating a JPEG that can be printed on photo paper, and the reason for the higher rates. Clients are paying for that extra expertise and expect that service. It's also a good reason to have errors and omissions as part of your insurance package.

sfaust wrote in post #4294714
And here is an interesting thought for those doing magazine work without insurance. Suppose you feed the magazine a set of images, and when it goes to press the image falls apart and ruins their press run. They loose tens of thousands of dollars, and decide to sue the photographer for their error. They may or may not win, but that wouldn't stop a pissed off magazine for filing the law suit to recover the money they lost. You would still have to defend yourself, and thats very expensive. Its happened before, and will happen again.

While its their responsibility to do QA on their production runs, its also the photographers responsibility to deliver images suitable and ready for production. If the photographer doesn't know how to properly prep the image for press use, and delivers faulty images it can hurt the photographers reputation and ruin a press run. There is more to commercial photography than creating a JPEG that can be printed on photo paper, and the reason for the higher rates. Clients are paying for that extra expertise and expect that service. It's also a good reason to have errors and omissions as part of your insurance package.

So if you deliver RAW files and let them do the conversion do you think you would have this problem? The reason I am shooting for these magazines is because of my finished web images they have seen for many photoshoots I didn't even send to them (word of mouth) posted on the web. I do understand that my SRGB conversions wont look exact, but they didn't ask me to convert for cheap paper nor did I tell them I could, it eased my workflow and put a quick 110.00 per hour in my pocket for just my angle and sharpness so I wont complain now that I see it as that. I dont want second rate, who does? I just went with "Their" workflow because the client was a good friend of the magazine and got me the hookup.

Now back to my main purpose, they are getting "generic" photos from me not truly my finished vision. Do you think this hurts me or helps me get a foot in the door? I do not plan on continuing to send photos half done imo.

If you deliver them RAW files, have a statement in your agreement that states that delivering RAW files is an unfinished product, the client will need to process the images for the final intended use, and therefore you can't guarantee its usability. Just make it clear that since you aren't doing the processing, you have no control over the final result.

But when you shoot for clients, there is an expectation that the images you are delivering will be suitable for their purpose. Much like when buying any product, you expect it to work as advertised. The portrait client expects the prints won't fade in 2 years, a magazine clients expect the image will reproduce properly, etc.

If you want to cover yourself just in case, IMO the photographer needs insurance coverage, or a very clear statement in the agreement that states he/she is not delivering a final product.

I rarely deliver RAW files, but when I do I let them know they are like unprocessed film, they aren't getting the vision they hired me for, and that they are totally responsible for all processing and conversion and its suitability for its intended use.

You could have a similar clause for any files you deliver in an attempt to cover in when delivering any files. But that won't stop anyone from suing you anyway, unfortunate as that is.

That means your shots are too good even a magazine editor is fooled.